Honestly, the amount of rubbish being spoken here in this thread as though it were gospel is quite frankly stupid.

"The round system makes it nearly impossible to create the drama needed to tell a good story..."

Bollocks! The story telling in a round system is different to the story telling done without rounds. Each round is an individual story in itself, sometimes two. They're shorter stories that combine to make a longer form story of the match. Quite a few times there's been a submission attempted towards the end of the round, and it's a race against the clock to see if the wrestler can avoid tapping out before time expires in the round. Couple of times, we've seen wrestlers go for a pin, only for the clock to beat them.

There's a lot of great storytelling potential in the rounds system, a system that by the way, was the mainstay of british wrestling back in the 60s, 70s and 80s. And those weren't three rounds of 3 or 5 minutes, they were usually 4, 6 or 8 rounds of 3 or 5 minutes, with 2 falls, 2 submissions or a knockout to decide the winner, with 2 public warnings before disqualification, or just occassionally a transgression so bad, it was instant disqualification.

It's not the rounds system itself that is at fault when a match is bad.

" It's just a stupid concept all around that the awful GFW creative team thought would be hip and cool."

Hate to break it to you sparky, but the Impact Grand Championship was created during the Billy Corgan as TNA President era. Anthem could have dropped it if they wanted do, but decided not to.

"Their a reason why the round system never worked in wrestling..."

It worked for many years in British Wrestling. So your statement is factually wrong.

"The formula is always the same, one guy wins the first round, the other wins the second round even if he doesn't deserve it then whoever they want to win the match win the third round."

Are you really advocating that somebody win both the first two rounds, rendering the third one moot? That would be stupid.

"From what I have read about the Impact Grand Championship, it's not making me want to check any of the matches out. It sounds like a really stupid concept and all those weird rules make it only worse."

Why are you relying on what other people say? Ignore the masses, watch it for yourself, make up your own damn mind. Don't listen to what anybody else says, watch it and decide for yourself.

Couple of reasonable points now.

"I brought up how instead of the championship being determined by rounds, make the matches 2 out of 3 falls. Now, depending on time constraints any of the falls could go on forever. In that case dedicate about a half hour or so of Impact to the Grand championship match. You could have two or three falls complete within that time. This seems more realistic that wrestling "rounds", and each fall has a decisive winner."

That's a reasonable idea, and in British Wrestling under the rounds system, championship matches were always two falls, two submissions or a knockout. If you want to keep it within the TV time limts, then you set a 20 minute time limit. You can have a 30 second break after each fall, or you can do 6 x 5 minute rounds, with a fall or submission ending the round early.

"3 minutes rounds aren't just enough and the breaks disrupt the gradual flow wrestlers try to make in 3 minutes."

I think 5 minute rounds would be better, but I get the 3 minute length, and by the way, you could say the same about Boxing's 3 minute rounds and the breaks there disrupting the flow.